|
|
Post by Macmoish on Aug 22, 2013 13:25:23 GMT
BBC Queens Park Rangers consider new Old Oak Common stadium Old Oak proposal option including sports stadium A potential new 40,000 all-seater stadium has been included in the Old Oak Vision document  Views sought on HS2 station plan HS2 timetable 'complete madness' HS2 may cost £10bn more than planned Queens Park Rangers have confirmed they are in talks over building a new 40,000-seat stadium as part of a redevelopment scheme at Old Oak Common. The area in north-west London is to be the main hub station in the capital for the HS2 high-speed rail project. A consultation was launched earlier in the summer on proposals which could see 19,000 new homes and 90,000 jobs. A QPR spokesman said: "We are looking at a number of potential options for a new stadium." "We believe that Old Oak could provide one possible solution," he added. 'Expansion ambitions' "We have met representatives of the GLA and the supporting local authorities to discuss whether a football stadium could be incorporated into any plan that comes forward for this site." Hammersmith and Fulham council leader Nicholas Botterill said: "We've had talks with all three of our football clubs about their expansion ambitions and are aware of QPR's interest in moving to a larger stadium." Views are being sought on plans for a High Speed 2 and Crossrail station in west London, as part of a scheme it is claimed could create up to 90,000 jobs. The Greater London Authority is consulting residents on the plan for Old Oak, which it says will improve the local economy and see thousands of homes built. If plans do go ahead, the area would be redeveloped by 2043, with the station open in 2026. The public consultation will end on 6 September.www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/publications/park-royal-planning-frameworkwww.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23793564?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter |
|
|
|
Post by Bushman on Aug 22, 2013 14:04:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sharky on Aug 22, 2013 14:29:07 GMT
Very interesting but didn't see a 40,000 football stadium!! They may have to do a new/revised one! |
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Aug 22, 2013 15:04:29 GMT
Rubbish!
Chucking in a lot of remarks which suggest that a 'rebrand' is inevitable. No explanation of what that is in football terms. Will it be something 'global'. You know, I bet it is.
Here's an example. Hull City Tigers. Just IMAGINE the effect that will have on Hull's opponents, is having already, and the City's prospects for dominating Europe.
You shift the Club's nickname an inch or so to the left. So it is before the FC bit, I mean. (and the question mark that normally follows the expression 'Hull City' (and 'QPR') in people's minds.
And, of course, it is all 'inevitable'. The implication is that its inevitability - wwe are to imagine something VAST, of course, not pathetic and inevitable, so it will 'work' and be a tremendous success.
This rubbish is extraordinary. 19,000 homes. And an area of new wealth comparable, I imagine, to Tokyo, California, Shanghai and Brazil all rolled into one.
Funny, though, isn't it? QPR is actually in a city with 10 million people? More? QPR is quite near the centre. It is what? For a brisk walker, a half hour WALK from the wealthiest BOROUGH in the country. I know. You probably think the wealthy sdon't come down to QPR too much.
Oh, but they will, when 19,000 of them are living right next to the football ground. 10,000,0000 Londoners, no. Don't be stupid. But 19,000 Bahrainis will be RIGHT in there.
Or is it social housing? Now, if QPR lived right next to, say, the White City Estate, they might benefit from social housing, but as they don't, imagine the TRANSFORMATION. The Club will be next door to instant supporters.
All you lot, commuting in from Brighton or Croydon or Stansted or all those places you won't even get a seat. What with the crowds from Asia - chiefly maybe Mumbai, Guangdong, Kuala Lumpur - the billionaires from Dallas or Moscow or the Kanto - and aall the TRAINS screaming by, attendances will just go up and up.
And we know why, don't we? They have a strategy. You knew it, didn't you? For a moment there, even I was worried. I thought the Club would be £300 million in debt AND have to pay the rent ...
... by the way, WTF is a CONTRIBUTION of £200 million, FFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What are they BUILDING???
And why is a mere tenant obliged to pay ANYTHING AT ALL!!! Surely the tenant is screwed sufficiently in the rent.
But it looks like QPR will be paying £200 million for a stadium that others will use and benefit from (and if they don't, I assume, QPR will cover ALL the losses because QPR is the ONLY element which involves GUARANTEED revenue).
Strange. West Ham are 'getting' the Olympic Stadium. THEIR contribution will be £15 million.
A few moments' reflection is all that is required.
Crap. Complete and utter crap. Vague, empty, meaningless nonsense. The more railway lines, the more predictable QPR's results become. If there are 19,000 homes, the people running the Club become smart. Their losses are getting on for £100 million NOW.
They have no idea how to put together a team which costs very little, achieves a lot, and earns a vast amount. But this rubbish depends on it. Merely doing what every other Club does except United - mediocrity - won't make the slightest difference.
They haven't the slightest idea how QPR will perform because they have no idea how ALL THE OTHER CLUBS will perform. Their efforts - and I mean the last 15 years, not just the recent disasters - amount to nothing. There are so many other Clubs competing, they have no idea which ones will overperform and which ones will underperform, so they have no idea how much to improve the Club, and in which departments.
But never mind all that football rubbish. They'll do it with ticketing. And adminstratively. That's how United and Arsenal did it. Deep in the Isthmian League, and with no hope, both Clubs were transformed because the directors had a strategy which involved fiddling around with membership schemes.
And it was just too much for all the rest. Football expertise is hardly required at all, is it, except to run up an £89 million debt.
How clever of them to make it £289 million at a stroke, without even WINNING anything like Chelsea or City. Chelsea paid for success, and so did City. But QPR will just pay a quarter of a billion for someone else's shopping centre, someone else's transport 'hub', and an all-purpose stadium.
Let f***ing 'all-purpose' PAY for it then!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Aug 22, 2013 16:24:45 GMT
So Ingham, how do you feel about a proposed move from Loftus Road?...
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Aug 22, 2013 16:25:31 GMT
Reminder of last week's Fan Representation Meeting with the Club In the joint report... QPR1st-Training ground and Stadium proposalsQPR1st has been asked by the local council to comment on regeneration proposals for the Old Oak Common which would include the building of a sports stadium and the possible involvement of a major educational, health, leisure, entertainment or sports provider. The Club were able to confirm that it was aware of the proposals and what they might mean for QPR, but stressed that there are still a number of possible sites being looked at. The Club was keen to emphasis that the plans to build a new stadium are still at a very early stage and no decisions had been made. It reassured the group that fans would be consulted as progress was made. From the fans perspective the key issue was that the stadium was designed to create maximum atmosphere. The Club was able to confirm it was continuing to work closely with Ealing Council regarding the Warren Farm Training Ground and both the Club and the Council continued to be strongly committed to the project. It regretted the legal action taken by a residents group over the Warren Farm sports facility but remained confident that the project would still go ahead... www.qpr1st.com/news/boardroom/fan-representatives-meeting-report/ |
|
|
|
Post by Bushman on Aug 22, 2013 20:25:38 GMT
It will be interesting to see if a local resident issues a writ to whoever devolopes Loftus Rd regarding the restrictive covenant it has on it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2013 21:25:32 GMT
It will be interesting to see if a local resident issues a writ to whoever devolopes Loftus Rd regarding the restrictive covenant it has on it. covenants can be removed by way of 'compensation'. money can buy developers out of whatever is restricted on that land. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2013 21:34:11 GMT
there cant be one level headed qpr fan out there that thinks this proposal can benefit QPRFC can there?
i've seen lots of great posts about why this isnt right, sound arguements against.
but can anyone put together some reasons why this would make our club great? would be of a benefit even? forget about materialistic nonsense, focus on 'the club'.
100 words please.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bushman on Aug 22, 2013 21:51:44 GMT
It will be interesting to see if a local resident issues a writ to whoever devolopes Loftus Rd regarding the restrictive covenant it has on it. covenants can be removed by way of 'compensation'. money can buy developers out of whatever is restricted on that land. Not the case anymore, as the "Covenant Movement" have proved many times. |
|
|
|
Post by alfaranger on Aug 22, 2013 21:51:45 GMT
there cant be one level headed qpr fan out there that thinks this proposal can benefit QPRFC can there? i've seen lots of great posts about why this isnt right, sound arguements against. but can anyone put together some reasons why this would make our club great? would be of a benefit even? forget about materialistic nonsense, focus on 'the club'. 100 words please. NO NONE NO End of over 100 years of the old QPR. No negative, just truth. |
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Aug 22, 2013 22:09:48 GMT
Shiny sparkly new stadium
More Leg room
Make us a big club
Need more income to be a big club
|
|
|
|
Post by desorchid on Aug 22, 2013 22:18:35 GMT
LR is a terrible ground. Don't believe all the hype about us moving.
Choices of ambition for supporters as i see it are:
- be happy being a Div 2/3 (old money) club with a ground with a comfortable capacity of c12/13000.
- be an ambitious club wanting to playing in the Premier league and move.
my preference is option a. I will probably be called a heretic for that but the 3 seasons we spent in Div 3 (in recent history) were my happiest times going home and away with Rangers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2013 22:44:00 GMT
covenants can be removed by way of 'compensation'. money can buy developers out of whatever is restricted on that land. Not the case anymore, as the "Covenant Movement" have proved many times. a silly, outdated covenant on a land will be bought out. money will buy you anything, even what the beatles sung about.  who placed the covenant? are they still around? what relevance does that covenant have on that land and locality in the here and now? all questions that can overturn it, and if not you reach mutual agreement with the vendor who placed it. the 'covenant movement'? do they wear masks? |
|
|
|
Post by londonranger on Aug 22, 2013 22:54:09 GMT
Desorchid, good to see you posting again.
|
|
|
|
Post by desorchid on Aug 22, 2013 23:00:17 GMT
Cheers London, still look on here regular like but 2 young boys, work, mortgages etc etc .....
|
|
|
|
Post by Bushman on Aug 22, 2013 23:01:52 GMT
Not the case anymore, as the "Covenant Movement" have proved many times. a silly, outdated covenant on a land will be bought out. money will buy you anything, even what the beatles sung about. who placed the covenant? are they still around? what relevance does that covenant have on that land and locality in the here and now? all questions that can overturn it, and if not you reach mutual agreement with the vendor who placed it. the 'covenant movement'? do they wear masks?If you want them to  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2013 23:37:43 GMT
a silly, outdated covenant on a land will be bought out. money will buy you anything, even what the beatles sung about. who placed the covenant? are they still around? what relevance does that covenant have on that land and locality in the here and now? all questions that can overturn it, and if not you reach mutual agreement with the vendor who placed it. the 'covenant movement'? do they wear masks?If you want them to  |
|
|
|
Post by blueeyedcptcook on Aug 23, 2013 6:28:49 GMT
Not the case anymore, as the "Covenant Movement" have proved many times. a silly, outdated covenant on a land will be bought out. money will buy you anything, even what the beatles sung about. who placed the covenant? are they still around? what relevance does that covenant have on that land and locality in the here and now? all questions that can overturn it, and if not you reach mutual agreement with the vendor who placed it. the 'covenant movement'? do they wear masks? You are so silly.!! I am a Catholic, and I can tell you that at a Covenant, the Nuns don,t wear a mask. What they wear is called a Habit.  |
|
|
|
Post by alfaranger on Aug 23, 2013 9:08:14 GMT
What is the restrictive covenant on this land (apologies if it's already been mentioned). On my land it's a restriction against keeping pigs within 10 feet (?) of a neighbours property (genuine).
|
|
|
|
Post by blatantfowl on Aug 23, 2013 19:51:51 GMT
£300 million plus in debt and we do not own our ground.
In 10 years I will supporting QPR AFC in the Ryman league. See you there
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Aug 24, 2013 7:14:58 GMT
Elsewhere.... “@suppdirect: SD Statement: Anfield listed as an Asset of Community Value following @spiritofshankly application t.co/DNdIz1iWxZ #fixfootball #LFC” PRESS RELEASE LIVERPOOL FC – ANFIELD AN ASSET OF COMMUNITY VALUE Supporters Direct Press release: 23/08/2013 Statement following the news that SD member, Spirit of Shankly has successfully applied to have Anfield listed as an Asset of Community Value. SD’s Head of England, Tom Hall, said: “This is great news for Spirit of Shankly, the Supporters Trust Movement, and for Supporters Direct. Two of the great homes of fan culture, Old Trafford and Anfield, have joined Oxford United and Nuneaton Town’s grounds in being protected. These successful listings are demonstrating that our view that clubs and their stadiums should be seen as community assets and not simply as part of an investment portfolio is being widely accepted.” For more on ACV’s, go to www.supporters-direct.org/?news-article=interested-in-listing-your-football-stadiumEnds BACK TO PRESS RELEASE LIST - See more at: www.supporters-direct.org/press-release/liverpool-fc-anfield-an-asset-of-community-value#sthash.XKBdqP2q.dpuf |
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Aug 24, 2013 16:37:08 GMT
Seems to be based on the usual disinformation, alfaranger, that doing almost anything will transform the Club EXCEPT raising the quality of the football so that QPR is better IN THAT WAY than almost anyone else. Business plans, new buildings, selling tickets in a different way, colouring the shirts in a different pattern, calling the ground something else. Passing the ball, not really. Scoring goals for fun, don't bother. Wiping the opposition out week after week, waste of time. Just do SOMETHING ELSE - in fact, ANYTHING ELSE, and the football will improve. In fact, if the football is improved in an extraordinary fashion - remember the Dutch, who had no successful teams and weren't a successful footballing nation - everything else falls into place. The support goes up. Revenue goes up. Quality players and managers are attracted to the Club. The means are there to build a new stadium. Even a new stadium that will be .... OF USE TO QPR. And not just some self-serving bunch of jerks. Not sure this answers your question  |
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Sept 3, 2013 12:54:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Sept 6, 2013 10:46:50 GMT
- Our response to the consultation Old Oak – a vision for the future Posted on September 5, 2013 by QPR1ST QPR1st, the independent supporters’ trust for Queens Park Rangers football club, has considered the information provided for this consultation. We are an organisation of QPR supporters and have an interest in these developments, in particular as they affect the club, which is situated in the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (W12 7PJ), and its supporters. We note that a proposal for a possible football stadium is included in this consultation document. An illustration (Figure 4.3) shows a proposed stadium in what would potentially be the first area within the development proposal to be regenerated; north of the Grand Union Canal. The document suggests a football stadium would help to kick-start regeneration in that area. Without prejudice to any club decision on the best site for a new QPR stadium, we can see that a stadium on that site would have benefits to the overall development plans and to the regeneration of the area. We would like to see this proposal remain on the table to allow further discussion on its practicality as a site for a new stadium for the club. We strongly endorse the comments in the consultation document that developers must ensure excellent, safe pedestrian links from Willesden Junction tube and overground services to the stadium, and to future Crossrail/HS2 stations. www.qpr1st.com/news/community/our-response-to-the-consultation-old-oak-a-vision-for-the-future/ |
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Sept 6, 2013 10:59:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Sept 6, 2014 7:30:54 GMT
As briefly reported a year ago... Bump a year (and a couple of weeks) QPR in talks over flash new home as they look to become next club to upgrade By CHARLES SALE Championship club Queen Park Rangers have overtaken west London neighbours and Premier League giants Chelsea in the search for a new stadium. Chelsea’s tortuous hunt has stalled, but QPR are in talks over building a futuristic 40,000-seat ground as part of a massive £10billion Canary Wharf-style development at Old Oak Common, near Wormwood Scrubs and Loftus Road. QPR are advanced enough in negotiations with Hammersmith and Fulham council and the Greater London Authority for a memorandum of understanding to have been drawn up. Possibility: Loftus Road may be replaced by a new stadium if QPR's plan can be achieved The plan is to transform 100 acres of industrial wasteland into a vast railway hub for Crossrail and the proposed HS2 link from Euston to Birmingham. A sports arena will also be built, as well as an office and residential complex with 19,000 homes — more than QPR’s current capacity. The proposals are said to require a £200m contribution from QPR, who have the backing of airline tycoon Tony Fernandes and the Mittal steel family, one of the richest in the UK. A QPR spokesman said: ‘We are taking a good look at various long-term options to see which makes the most sense.’ Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2398533/QPR-talks-flash-new-home--CHARLES-SALE.html#ixzz2cY9AVgUC |
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Sept 6, 2014 7:43:03 GMT
And this was Dave McIntyre in APril 2013
Dave McIntyre/West London Sport - April 2013
QPR owners stay committed because their eyes are on the prize17/04/2013 There has been plenty of speculation about QPR’s finances and how the club’s owners will respond to relegation. It’s become trendy to suggest Rangers might ‘do a Portsmouth’ – a grim picture painted with some relish by Tony Fernandes’ detractors. This misses the point, as does basking in the warm glow of assurances about his long-term commitment whenever such platitudes are trotted out. Both sides are failing to see the bigger picture.
Be in no doubt that Rangers’ owners will remain absolutely committed to their project and have no intention of walking away, regardless of which division the team are in.
Because, although relegation is an obvious major setback, when it comes to the regime’s long-term ambitions, the importance of which division Rangers are in next season is easily overstated.
Notice that whenever the likes of Fernandes and Philip Beard restate the shareholders’ commitment they almost always mention a new stadium in the next breath. That’s no accident.Leaving Loftus Road is a key aim. Fernandes is presented with a PR open goal when he can heroically reaffirm his commitment to the cause in the face of relegation – because it’s the pursuit of a new sports and entertainment venue, not whether Rangers stay in the top flight, that locks the owners in for the long haul. Any hitch there would be much more significant than relegation – a potential game changer. But, Crossrail permitting, such a hitch looks increasingly unlikely. A new sport and leisure complex in the west/north-west London area could generate an absolute fortune – more than enough to dwarf even the huge losses incurred by Rangers’ feckless spending. It would be comparable to the regeneration of areas of east London and so would the subsequent wealth to spring from it. It would also establish QPR’s Malaysian shareholders as major players in London – one of the most prominent cities in the world. It’s why Beard, a man with little football knowledge or understanding of QPR fans’ priorities, but with a background in branding and having helped establish the O2 Arena as a leading entertainment destination, was installed as chief executive. And it’s why Fernandes appears so calm and committed despite ill-informed assumptions that the club’s owners can’t sustain the current level of spending. They can sustain it. And they will sustain it while there’s a potential pot of gold in sight. Much has been lost, but there’s still an awful lot to be gained. So, fully committed? Absolutely. In it for the long haul? Too right. A £15m loan secured against the club’s assets last month looks suspicious and will inevitably be taken as a sign of financial stress and the commitment of the regime possibly wavering. Again, this move has been made largely with the new stadium in mind. It is a strategic move by Fernandes and chums to test a relationship with lenders Barclays Hong Kong – a growing relationship which has existed for some time and could be called upon in future years if, despite their collective wealth, Rangers’ owners are not keen to fund the entire cost of a new stadium and training ground. QPR plan to repay it quickly, possibly within three or four months. In securing such a loan while facing relegation from the Premier League, and in a climate in which banks are reluctant to loan money to football clubs, Rangers have established that, going forward, they won’t have problems getting access to cash. Of course, ‘doing a Portsmouth’ can’t be ruled out. No amount of money is finite, losses cannot be permanently sustainable, loans secured against the club’s assets are never something to savour, and failing to get back into the top flight would be problematic. So too would relegation from the Championship which, although an outcome Fernandes’ army of believers probably won’t contemplate, is entirely possible given the shambles he continues to preside over. But the regime’s pockets are deep and their eyes are on the prize. So although a Pompey-style meltdown could happen, as things stand the club is more likely to end up spiritually rather than financially ruined. Many dismiss Fernandes’ vision of a 40,000-capacity stadium as a bizarre and misguided pipe dream, given QPR’s relatively modest fan base. They fail to understand the scope of his rebranding project, which is every bit as radical as Flavio Briatore’s despite the more touchy feely style. Football, QPR and the London landscape are changing rapidly and over the next few years are likely to change even more. A state-of-the-art stadium and leisure complex in an overhauled area of west/north-west London, which is home to high-profile players from parts of the world where the Premier League (which Rangers hope to be back in by then) is massive, would be a huge attraction – and extremely profitable. It would also mean the end of QPR as we know it, which for some will equate to a Wimbledon-style killing of their club and for others will be necessary progress given Rangers’ limited growth potential while they remain at Loftus Road. Either way, it’s a project Fernandes and co remain determined to press ahead with. West London Sport |
|
